Who Signed the Representation of Dimple Yadav in Mulayam’s Disproportionate Income Case?
Abhishek Upadhyay for BeyondHeadlines
In Mulayam’s disproportionate income case, one representation made by Mulayam’s daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav, proved to be a game changer. This representation not only helped CBI to change its stand in Mulayam’s case but also severely weakened case against him and his family. Armed with this representation, CBI approached Solicitor General for legal opinion who in a way, completely exonerated Mulayam and his family in this very case. But there is a big technical flaw in this entire process which, if exposed, might turn the table against Mulayam. The representation on which center gave such a big reprieve to Mulayam, in the aftermath of 2008 trust vote, where SP surprisingly parted ways with left front and supported UPA government, allegedly doesn’t bear Dimple’s signature.
Vishwanath Chaturvedi, the Petitioner in Mulayam’s Disproportionate Assets Case, confirms that the signature of Dimple on the representation was bogus. Department of Personnel and Training, headed by Mr. V Narayansami, the MOS in the PMO, declined to give copy of this representation under RTI. Vishwanath says, “DOPT gave several other documents but didn’t cede this very important piece of information, which might prove to be a game changer in this case.” Mulayam’s one time blue eyed lieutenant and now a bête noire, Amar Singh also confirms the fact. He was the one who was present at the time, representation was prepared. He says that he had exhorted Mulayam not to do so and warned him for its future consequences which might damage the case irreparably.
The importance of this very representation made by Dimple Yadav, wife of UP CM Akhilesh Yadav can be understood in the following terms. Mulayam came under scanner of Disproportionate Income Case in the year 2007 when CBI registered a preliminary enquiry against Mulayam and his family on 5th March. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, petitioner in this case had approached Supreme Court which had ordered for CBI investigation in response to his PIL. CBI investigated the case and filed an IA before the Supreme Court on 26 October 2007. CBI apprised the Supreme Court that it had concluded its enquiry and wanted to proceed further without any reference to the Union Government or State Government.
This was a big shot in arm for the investigation agency against Mulayam and his family. CBI was moving in the direction to nail Mulayam for his allegedly ill gotten money and misuse of state power for personal gains. In the meantime, UPA government fell in to crisis, following withdrawal of support by left parties on the issue of nuclear deal. In this scenario, 36 MPs enjoyed by Samajwadi Party at that time, became a life breather for the government at center. Here began the representation story of Dimple Yadav. To ensure the support of Mulayam Singh’s party, Dimple was made to present a representation before DOPT in July 2008. This happened just before the trust vote of July, which UPA won, thanks to the active support and indulgence of Mulayam’s Samajwadi Party.
Dimple made two more such representations after the trust vote was over. Representations opposed CBI’s ways of computing the alleged disproportionate income of Mulayam and objected the clubbing of income of family members in Mulayam’s income. Following these representations, CBI instantly came in to action and approached SC for seeking legal opinion in this case. Accordingly Mr. Goolam Vahanvati, then solicitor general came out with his legal opinion and termed CBI’s probe against Mulayam as violating important facts and positions of law. Vahanvati opined that since the family member of Yadav clan had been filing individual tax returns, there was no sense in clubbing their wealth together.
This legal opinion completely weakened CBI’s position in this case and heavily tilted the balance in favor of Mulayam. This was a miracle based on the representation of Dimple’s representation. This u tern of CBI is currently under judicial scrutiny of Supreme Court which has reserved its order in this very case. But the matter of alleged forged signature or no signature still haunts this very case and ipso facto raises some very serious questions. The question is why Dimple avoided her own signature on these representations? Was she misguided or there was fudging in representations? Why DOPT declined to part with details of representation in response to RTI? Why Dimple is silent on this very issue and doesn’t clear her position? Answers to these questions are as important as the case itself as the names involved are quite big and stakes are too high.
